The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. For the record, the one page in the category is George Pell. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cardinals convicted of sexual abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Is it really necessary to have a category with just one person? What does this category provide that other categories do not? Also, what about Anglican Cardinals? Rockstonetalk to me! 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no Anglican cardinal has been convicted of sexual abuse. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None yet, you mean.--Auric talk 11:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the one article is already in Category:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tiny category, with little scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for reasons given above: priests category is sufficient. Manannan67 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that the category is needed as long as there is only one category member. If someone were to dig up a bunch of other articles to add to the category, then it would be a different matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I doubt he will be the only cardinal convicted, ever.--Auric talk 11:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 08:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming
  • Category:Halsey (singer) songs to Category:Halsey songs
  • Category:Songs written by Halsey (singer) to Category:Songs written by Halsey

Nominator's rationale: Remove unneeded parenthetical. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article is at Halsey (singer) and it is a guideline that category and article should be similarly named, so much so, that renaming a category in accordance with its article is a speedy procedure to request a change of category 'C2D: Consistency with main article's name.' If the nominator wishes to propose renaming the article I would not oppose. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is this guideline? Does it really say to copy parenthetical disambiguators into category names that just related to article topics? If so, maybe we can work on changing that. If it doesn't say that, it probably doesn't mean that. If you're just referring to WP:C2D, that doesn't apply to category names that differ by including "Songs written by..." or "...song", which makes the disambiguation unneeded. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While WP:C2D does not apply in this case (it only applies to topic categories, and this one is a set category), disambiguating categories in this manner is common practice. In general, a category title should never be more ambiguous than the corresponding article's title. In this case, "Halsey" on its own is ambiguous. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Although not properly nominated, there has been a previous nomination for the same rename as proposed for Halsey (singer) songs, with 3 other cats, where the discussion resulted in a 'do not rename' Mabel.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing out the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_30#Category:Mabel_(singer)_songs. I agree that this should be taken to a broader discussion such as at WP:VPP rather than focus on the few that I happened to run across. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it is entirely standard to keep the disambiguator. The eponymous topic category is Category:Halsey (singer) (C2D) and the subcats follow suit (C2C). Oculi (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 08:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Damned (band) songs to Category:The Damned songs

Nominator's rationale: Remove unneeded parenthetical. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article is at The Damned (band) and it is a guideline that category and article should be similarly named, so much so, that renaming a category in accordance with its article is a speedy procedure to request a change of category 'C2D: Consistency with main article's name.' If the nominator wishes to propose renaming the article I would not oppose. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  Where is this guidline? Does it really say to copy parenthetical disambiguators into category names of songs? If so, maybe we can work on changing that. If it doesn't say that, it probably doesn't mean that. If you're just referring to WP:C2D, that doesn't apply to category names that differ by including the word "songs" which makes the disambiguation unneeded. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While WP:C2D does not apply in this case (it only applies to topic categories, and this one is a set category), disambiguating categories in this manner is common practice. In general, a category title should never be more ambiguous than the corresponding article's title. In this case, "The Damned songs" on its own is ambiguous, and could be mistaken for songs from one of the films or the album of the same name. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - here there is no eponymous Category:The Damned (band) but the principle is the same. Oculi (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 08:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Odesskiy Listok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Newspapers published in Odessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a defunct newspaper that doesn't have the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. In actual fact, the newspaper doesn't even have a Wikipedia article of its own yet on en -- rather, this is being used solely to WP:SMALLCAT a single person who once wrote for the newspaper but isn't defined by that fact as journalism isn't his primary notability claim, and he isn't being similarly categorized for the other newspaper he once worked for either. And even if somebody actually were to put in the effort to get an article about the newspaper rushed into place, it would still be a SMALLCAT without enough entries to justify an eponymous category. The "Newspapers published in Odessa" category, meanwhile, will simply be left empty if/when the eponymous category for Odesskiy Listok goes. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Muslim astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fail WP:EGRS –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least regarding "Jewish", since the fact that they were Jewish was noted by sources, and in some cases had a certain influence on their behavior as astronauts (especially Ilan Ramon). Debresser (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcalssification by religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:6th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:12th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:13th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:14th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:15th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:16th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:17th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose deleting Category:20th-century kings of Sardinia

Nominator's rationale: delete. In the 6th century there was just an usurper; in the 12th century there were judges in parts of Sardinia; in the 13th century Enzo of Sardinia was the one and only exception who actually was king of Sardinia; then up up to the 17th century it was a subsidiary title of the kings of Aragon and Spain; and finally in the 20th century it was a subsidiary title of the kings of Italy (if the title still existed at all in the 20th century, which I am not even certain of). This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion; @Laurel Lodged, Peterkingiron, and Lurking shadow: pinging the participators in that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I wonder whether we should be leaving a cat-redirect, though a dab-article would actually do the job better. Categories should exist for 18th century (from 1720) when it was the main title of the House of Savoy until the mid-19th century when they became Kings of Italy following reunification. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The categories reflect the main article List of monarchs of Sardinia, which specifies that the title was still in use in 1946. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale is not that these kings did not hold the title of 'King of Sardinia' (although some of them seem to have held the title 'King of Sardinia and Corsica') so there is no objection against their mentioning in the list article, but the rationale is that it is not a defining characteristic of these kings. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support categories should be defining to holders. Rulers of large empliers (like the 17th century rulers) should not be categorized by every royal title they hold. I thing the Spanish rulers at that time held at least 6 maybe more royal titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge and rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1890s in the British Solomon Islands‎ to Category:1890s in the Solomon Islands‎
• Propose merging Category:1890s establishments in the British Solomon Islands‎ to Category:1890s establishments in the Solomon Islands‎
• Propose renaming Category:1893 establishments in the British Solomon Islands‎ to Category:1893 establishments in the Solomon Islands‎
• Propose merging Category:1893 in the British Solomon Islands‎ to Category:1893 in the Solomon Islands‎
• Propose merging Category:Years of the 20th century in the British Solomon Islands to Category:Years of the 20th century in the Solomon Islands added 2 September

Nominator's rationale: merge and also add the parent categories to the targets, in order to keep one simple hierarchy, in the same way as has been done with the 20th-century year and decade categories of the Solomon Islands. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have added the parent category of the years to the nomination, for consistency, essentially per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as the chronology hierarchy for British Solomon Islands is duplicative and in any case incomplete. For info, it was created by a user who has since been blocked. – Fayenatic London 04:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Werewolf video games to Category:Video games about werewolves

Nominator's rationale: For the same reason as the recent renaming of Category:Video games about demons. Less non-defining. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per various precedents. Heck, why not make a batch nomination? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support More grammatically sound.--Auric talk 11:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vixen (band) songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category presently does not contain any articles, only 2 redirects. Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - neither redirect is useful as the album article includes merely the title and the length of the songs. Oculi (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We only keep "{Band) songs" categories if one or more songs actually have standalone articles that demonstrate the song's notability per WP:NSONGS; we don't keep them if all of the songs are just redirects to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dave Barry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:L.A. Guns songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category does not contain any articles, only one redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We only keep "{Band) songs" categories if one or more songs actually have standalone articles that demonstrate the song's notability per WP:NSONGS; we don't keep them if all of the songs are just redirects to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Australian history. MER-C 10:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of Australia to Category:Wikipedians interested in Australia

Nominator's rationale: One member user category; it's a compromised account.

Note: category is sorted by User:AnonNep/userboxes/AustHist. Recommendation is just to upmerge with both parents for now unless that userbox catches on. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Note that Category:Wikipedians interested in history contains several of these poorly populated subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I found Category:Wikipedians interested in Australian history which is of course the better merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete manually, to allow for editorial discretion regarding what to do with the members. MER-C 10:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Climate_forcing_agents to Category:Climate_forcing

Nominator's rationale: Categories are too similar, effectively redundant crandles (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this comes from WikiProject review of categories. crandles (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. effectively redundant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose / tend to delete (the latter added later in the day), an article like Global warming potential in the parent category is entirely incomparable with an article like Black carbon in the subcategory. The latter article is not mainly about global warming and the agents subcategory may be a borderline case of WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Not sure I am following this argument. Black carbon can cause climate change (aerosol effects, albedo change effects) so fits the definition of 'climate forcing' or 'climate forcing agent'. 'Global warming potential' is not a specific 'climate forcing agent' but is about comparing different 'climate forcings'. So this fits in 'climate forcings' category but possibly doesn't fit in 'climate forcing agents'. The proposal is to merge agents into 'climate forcings' which seems the right way around to get all the articles to fit. Can you clarify your argument please. crandles (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles in the agents category are not primarily about climate and should not be confounded with articles in the main category which are primarily about climate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better if the climate effects of these agents were separated into their own pages like climate effects of soot. See also reply to DexDor below. crandles (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Better start with an overview article about climate forcing agents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate forcing now redirects to a brief overview of major forcings at Climate_system#External_climate_forcing rather than radiative forcing. crandles (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this section could be a good starting point for a new more elaborate page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (upmerging a few articles if necessary, possibly listify) as non-defining. Soot, Ship tracks, Mount Pinatubo, Sulfate, Wildfire etc are not articles about similar topics. DexDor ^(talk) 13:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are these not 'things that can force climate to change'? Also, are you proposing deleting both 'climate forcing' and 'climate forcing agents', agreeing to a merge as proposed, or something else? crandles (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those may well all be 'things that can force climate to change', but is that really a defining characteristic? Mount Pinatubo, for example is well categorized in Category:Stratovolcanoes of the Philippines etc. See also WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE - e.g. what about thousands of other volcanoes, aircraft, chemicals, animals ....? I'm proposing deleting this category (i.e. removing the category tag from the articles), and possibly in a few cases putting the article in the parent category instead. DexDor ^(talk) 20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few volcanic eruptions are large enough to affect climate, 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo is a good recent example of one that did. If each of these forcings had a page like climate effects of 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, climate effects of soot etc then it would be clear these climate effects articles would belong in the category not the articles like soot. Unfortunately the climate effects of these things are incorporated in articles not in their own separate pages and may or may not merit mention of climate effect in the lede. If you strictly adhere to only defining characteristics, you could only have a climate forcing category that could hope to be reasonably comprehensive if the climate effects of these things were separated out onto their own pages. In some ways I think this is possibly a shame preventing useful categories, but I guess rules are rules. Separating out climate effects into their own page is something that the wikiproject could or perhaps should consider doing. While we are considering and/or doing this, going down to one category from two seems a step in the right direction, so can I plead for the proposed merger as an interim measure even if you don't think it is the correct end solution. crandles (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any articles specifically about things affecting the climate (such as Effects on climate of 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo) then those would belong in/below Category:Climate. However, we shouldn't split articles up just to make more articles to categorize. If you want a comprehensive list of things that have/could affect the climate (without being limited by categorization rules) then create a list. DexDor ^(talk) 18:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 08:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD: being a recipient of this widely given award is not a defining characteristic. Cheers, gnu57 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The relatively few official state decorations that are around don't cost a lot of bytes for Wikipedia. We can afford it. PPEMES (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not about bytes but about overcategorization, or in more common language to avoid too much category clutter in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If you receive an award from the Vatican it gives the reader, in just half a line, important insights about why you did what you did. And about what you did. (And about your relationship more generally with Mother Church.) The Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice page itself got 764 "visits" in the last twenty days, so even if you or I are not desperately interested in gongs received from the papacy (or from anyone else), there appear to be quite a lot of our readers who are. Charles01 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article is well-visited, it would make perfect sense to convert the category to a list as a section of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an award non-defining to the receipients. We could have a list, but a category clutters the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. In some articles (e.g. Josef Mocker) it's not even mentioned (let alone referenced) - hence listification might not be advisable. DexDor ^(talk) 13:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if necessary: lists can say why it was awarded which can be of interest -- OCAWARD is about category clutter. The visits figure quoted is for an article, not a category. The normal outcome in OCAWARD cases is to listify before deletion, if there is not already a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Moot. Category:Interest user templates was merged into the general userbox category well over two months ago, so I'm honestly surprised that no-one bothered to close the discussion for so long. Comment aside, I think this category can still be re-nominated if anyone reasonably believes a better merge target can be found, such as the aforementioned category. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Favourite subject user templates to Category:Interest user templates (or to Category:Userboxes if Category:Interest user templates is upmerged)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, meaningless distinction of userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, it might be better to add both these nominations to yesterday's nomination of Interest user templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: Rather not, I am not entirely certain that there is no room for Category:Interest user templates. I have adapted this nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge instead to Category:Science user templates, because most of "favourite subjects" are sciences. Not science userboxes can be moved out of science category later. Science userboxes can be subcategorized into subcategories of Category:Science user templates later. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge would be a better idea, put all the science userboxes together.Catfurball (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, these have a clear common connection, and the category is sufficiently well-populated to be useful. Move the sub-cat Science user templates up out of this one, as that one is not restricted to "favourite subject" science templates. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: if you are referring to the FavSub entries, the two things that they have in common is shared name plus the fact that User:FudgeFury has created them. Is that enough for keeping? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a third commonality—namely, that they follow the following form: "This user's favo(u)rite subject is X". I admit, though, that I am not sure if this, in and of itself, is a useful basis for categorization... at the moment, I am halfheartedly leaning toward "yes". There are some exceptions (e.g. degree userboxes, interest userboxes), but these should be recategorized anyway. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: merge to where? MER-C 10:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The category page says it's for "user templates relating to the user's favourite subject at school or college". I'm not sure such templates really belong in wp, but that's a matter for TfD and as long as there are many of them it's reasonable to categorize them separately from general user interest templates. A rename to make the category name align with the category text might help. DexDor ^(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: except none of the templates in the category make the distinction that they are about subjects in school. Basically, this description of the category can and should be ignored. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but they are all(?) "This user's favourite subject is ...". Perhaps the category (if kept) text should be changed (e.g. to put the bit about school/college in brackets). I still disagree with the nom "meaningless distinction of userboxes". If an argument is made that it's better just to have Category:Science user templates etc then I might support it. DexDor ^(talk) 06:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If someone is willing to do the diffusing categorizing them per subject insted of type would make sense since that is how users are likley to look for them. --Trialpears (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename, then purge. MER-C 08:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People associated with the Rockefeller Foundation to Category:Rockefeller Foundation people

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with sibling categories in Category:People by organization and purge biographies of people who are only loosely associated with the foundation, per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. All included were originally in Category:Rockefeller Foundation. Can make a Category:Rockefeller Foundation people subcategory for those with positions within, but we have many “People associated with” categories, eg, Category:People associated with Greenpeace. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter is a matter of WP:OSE. We should not categorize people by non-defining characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes "OSE" for a reason. You propose to "purge" those "only loosely associated with the foundation" but it is not clear how your title change does that. Will you purge people sourced as closely associated with the foundation but never employed by it or in an official position with it? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct. Norman Borlaug, director of an institute that was partly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, is an example of a candidate to be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And no one thought to do this when he was for over a year in Category:Rockefeller Foundation? Hyperbolick (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge as nominated. Vaguely named "association" categories leave readers and editors wondering what level of association is required or sufficient to qualify a person to be included in the category. It is not without reason that "people associated with" is a defined form of overcategorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge as nominated. DexDor ^(talk) 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.